SteveBarnsleytrucker:
albion1971:
SteveBarnsleytrucker:
albion1971:
K5 You seem to be biased against cyclists like many on here.I agree cyclists are a big problem but so are incompetent drivers.
You mention about a cyclist on a phone! How many drivers do you see using a phone compared to cyclists? Probably about 100 to 1.
You also mention about right of way.As with so many drivers they are ignorant of the rules.No driver ever has right of way.
You are wrong there because if a car has to go onto my side of the road to get around a parked car then it is me who has the right of way not them, same as a roundabout, traffic coming from the right has right of way over traffic entering the roundabout.
You accused me of being wrong! I am not wrong.Any chance of a proper explanation?
So how about a road where it narrows to a single road and you have the sign saying either you have the right of way over oncoming traffic or they do?? You know the blue square with the big white arrow and little red one? Going by your logic a car joining a motorway could ignore the give way markings at the bottom of a slip road join the motorway cause an accident and the other vehicle would be as much to blame because as you say, “no driver ever has the right of way” when we all all know that’s ■■■■■■■■ because those already on the motorway (a major road) have priority over those who are joining off the slip road (a minor road)
Sorry but it is not bollox.You obviously did not take my advice before replying.The signs you are talking about do not give you right of way over oncoming traffic.
You may have priority but certainly not right of way.There is a big difference.
It is a pity so many are ignorant of a lot of rules on the road.Maybe then driving standards would improve.
You accused me Albion of been biased then just ignored my response but continue to argue something else does that mean I’ve got a valid point you can’t really argue against hence why you and Rhythm Thief are arguing about rights of way defecting and arguing about something other then the valid points? I’ve noticed with you cyclist lot you argue wording use alot if someone uses right of way instead of priority.
Road tax rather then road fund licence you get all jump up about it
Which proves 99% of it is arguing for the sake of arguing
And Carryfast you know when you’ve upset them as Rhythm Thief starts answering on someone else behalf for the PRO cyclist side (unless there the same person) better duck and cover the chester & co. will be here soon to show you the error of your ways 
I also love on a truck forum some of the most popular threads are cyclists arguing rights of way, who’s in the wrong etc can the admins please change the forum name from trucknetuk to Cyclist Vs Big nasty mean HGV’s 
Can we have it you have to scan a copy of your driving licence and CPC card to use this forum I’ll be interested how many users disappear
I don’t think it’s especially helpful to divide people up into “cyclists” and “truck drivers” and “car drivers” and all the rest of it. I’ve said it before (and made the same point in reverse on cycling forums, incidentally): I’m the same person whether I’m riding a bike, driving a truck or on bloody roller skates. (Not that I ever use roller skates.) But to me, it seems obvious that the greater duty of care should be on the operator of the vehicle which brings the danger into the environment. In the case of cyclists on shared use paths, that’s the cyclist (and yes, I have slated cyclists who have been riding dangerously on shared use paths); in the case of lorries on public roads, it’s the driver of the lorry. We shouldn’t be going around saying things like “well, he was in my blind spot, and therefore fair game”. How can we expect every single road user to understand every detail of what a driver can and can’t see? Should we extend that to pedestrians? Should they have to pass a test before using the roads?
I freely admit that I’m a better and safer cyclist because I’ve driven lorries and understand where their drivers can and can’t see and where their blind spots are, but I’m also a better driver because I understand that cyclists do and always will creep around vehicles and sometimes position themselves in my blind spot, and I allow for this as far as possible when I drive anywhere cyclists may be. I don’t see that as being especially “pro cyclist” (like that’s a bad thing): it’s just part of being a good driver.
Agree with the duty of care point but what about self preservation? In your own admission you are a safer cyclist because you understand the challenges faced by drivers of larger vehicles but safer for who primarily? I would contend that is the self preservation point if other road users abdicate their responsibility and come unstuck they can’t push that responsibility onto others who may well have done all that is practically possible to avoid the conflict. 
albion1971:
SteveBarnsleytrucker:
albion1971:
K5 You seem to be biased against cyclists like many on here.I agree cyclists are a big problem but so are incompetent drivers.
You mention about a cyclist on a phone! How many drivers do you see using a phone compared to cyclists? Probably about 100 to 1.
You also mention about right of way.As with so many drivers they are ignorant of the rules.No driver ever has right of way.
You are wrong there because if a car has to go onto my side of the road to get around a parked car then it is me who has the right of way not them, same as a roundabout, traffic coming from the right has right of way over traffic entering the roundabout.
You accused me of being wrong! I am not wrong.Any chance of a proper explanation?
At least I’ve given you that explanation by pointing out that for the purposes of your argument by ‘right of way’ what’s actually being referred to is priorities and the rules of the road as they apply in the case of those priorities.In which case the issue of so called ‘right of way’ in it’s literal sense is just a bs red herring which you’re using.As I’ve also pointed out any competent driver knows that even those priorities as they stand sometimes have to be reversed without making a drama out of it on a defensive driving basis.Which ironically you obviously chose to forget about when it suited you on the truck entering the roundabout topic.
K5Project:
You accused me Albion of been biased then just ignored my response but continue to argue something else does that mean I’ve got a valid point you can’t really argue against hence why you and Rhythm Thief are arguing about rights of way defecting and arguing about something other then the valid points? I’ve noticed with you cyclist lot you argue wording use alot if someone uses right of way instead of priority.
Road tax rather then road fund licence you get all jump up about it
Which proves 99% of it is arguing for the sake of arguing
And Carryfast you know when you’ve upset them as Rhythm Thief starts answering on someone else behalf for the PRO cyclist side (unless there the same person) better duck and cover the chester & co. will be here soon to show you the error of your ways
I also love on a truck forum some of the most popular threads are cyclists arguing rights of way, who’s in the wrong etc can the admins please change the forum name from trucknetuk to Cyclist Vs Big nasty mean HGV’s
Can we have it you have to scan a copy of your driving licence and CPC card to use this forum I’ll be interested how many users disappear
Sorry I was not aware of ignoring your response.I can assure it was not on purpose.I sometimes skip through some of the posts especially when people ramble on completely missing the point.
If you cannot understand why I tend to ignore carryfast you obviously do not read his posts properly.
Maybe you are not as biased as some on here but there are certainly some that are not fully aware of the rules and laws of our roads including a lot of cyclists.
Now I am being accused of arguing just for the sake of it.Makes a change from other accusations though.
Yes it would be interesting to see who actually had vocational licenses.The garbage some post on here makes you wonder how they ever got one.
Rhythm Thief:
I don’t think it’s especially helpful to divide people up into “cyclists” and “truck drivers” and “car drivers” and all the rest of it. I’ve said it before (and made the same point in reverse on cycling forums, incidentally): I’m the same person whether I’m riding a bike, driving a truck or on bloody roller skates. (Not that I ever use roller skates.) But to me, it seems obvious that the greater duty of care should be on the operator of the vehicle which brings the danger into the environment. In the case of cyclists on shared use paths, that’s the cyclist (and yes, I have slated cyclists who have been riding dangerously on shared use paths); in the case of lorries on public roads, it’s the driver of the lorry. We shouldn’t be going around saying things like “well, he was in my blind spot, and therefore fair game”. How can we expect every single road user to understand every detail of what a driver can and can’t see? Should we extend that to pedestrians? Should they have to pass a test before using the roads?
I freely admit that I’m a better and safer cyclist because I’ve driven lorries and understand where their drivers can and can’t see and where their blind spots are, but I’m also a better driver because I understand that cyclists do and always will creep around vehicles and sometimes position themselves in my blind spot, and I allow for this as far as possible when I drive anywhere cyclists may be. I don’t see that as being especially “pro cyclist” (like that’s a bad thing): it’s just part of being a good driver.
Going by all that so you’re going to make a left turn at a junction and there’s nothing showing in the nearside mirrors and no cyclists in view.What do you intend to do next other than pause/stop before turning in the hope that ‘if’ there’s a cyclist there,that you haven’t seen because the idiot undertook you while your attention was away from the nearside mirrors,the cyclist in question will then move into view before you make the decision to go through with the turn.
In which case all you’re doing is facilitating the continuation of a hit or miss dodgy approach in an attempt to fix the symptoms of stupid cycling habit that needs fixing at the cause in the form of making cyclists aware of the dangers of that situation and putting the responsibility on ‘them’ to remove that cause.Not the truck driver in trying and inevitably at some point failing to deal with the symptoms.
Carryfast:
albion1971:
SteveBarnsleytrucker:
albion1971:
K5 You seem to be biased against cyclists like many on here.I agree cyclists are a big problem but so are incompetent drivers.
You mention about a cyclist on a phone! How many drivers do you see using a phone compared to cyclists? Probably about 100 to 1.
You also mention about right of way.As with so many drivers they are ignorant of the rules.No driver ever has right of way.
You are wrong there because if a car has to go onto my side of the road to get around a parked car then it is me who has the right of way not them, same as a roundabout, traffic coming from the right has right of way over traffic entering the roundabout.
You accused me of being wrong! I am not wrong.Any chance of a proper explanation?
At least I’ve given you that explanation by pointing out that for the purposes of your argument by ‘right of way’ what’s actually being referred to is priorities and the rules of the road as they apply in the case of those priorities.In which case the issue of so called ‘right of way’ in it’s literal sense is just a bs red herring which you’re using.As I’ve also pointed out any competent driver knows that even those priorities as they stand sometimes have to be reversed without making a drama out of it on a defensive driving basis.Which ironically you obviously chose to forget about when it suited you on the truck entering the roundabout topic.
What truck entering a roundabout? That was not part of the discussion.
Regarding Defensive Driving I taught it for many years including teaching Police Officers.
The simple answer is that my attention is very rarely away from the nearside mirrors, certainly not for long enough to miss a cyclist. It takes a while for someone on a bike to make their way down the side of a trailer and the only real blind spot is right next to the cab: if my attention is off my nearside mirror for the length of time it takes a cyclist to actually get to my blind spot, then I’m not doing my job properly. In short, I know there’s a blind spot there and my driving allows for it.
Rhythm Thief:
The simple answer is that my attention is very rarely away from the nearside mirrors, certainly not for long enough to miss a cyclist. It takes a while for someone on a bike to make their way down the side of a trailer and the only real blind spot is right next to the cab: if my attention is off my nearside mirror for the length of time it takes a cyclist to actually get to my blind spot, then I’m not doing my job properly. In short, I know there’s a blind spot there and my driving allows for it.
Exactly the way it should be but probably rarely carried out.Just blame the blind spot.It is easier that way.
Rhythm Thief:
The simple answer is that my attention is very rarely away from the nearside mirrors, certainly not for long enough to miss a cyclist. It takes a while for someone on a bike to make their way down the side of a trailer and the only real blind spot is right next to the cab: if my attention is off my nearside mirror for the length of time it takes a cyclist to actually get to my blind spot, then I’m not doing my job properly. In short, I know there’s a blind spot there and my driving allows for it.
The really dangerous thing is that there are drivers and cyclists out there who believe that and those complacent drivers will just result in yet more cyclists believing it and getting themselves in the danger zone because of it.
As for me I could reverse your idea by saying that if you’re diverting that much attention to the nearside mirrors then your not applying enough to the offside ones and what’s going on ahead.Bearing in mind that I wouldn’t trust even my usual left hand turn method which was just drive it through the turn on the nearside mirrors and let what’s going on ahead look after itself after I’d satisfied myself that nothing was going to get in the way.Which is why I also used that life saver pause just in case there ‘might’ have been something out of view that ‘hopefully’ would then come into view before committing the wagon to the turn.The same applies in the case of left hand drive wagons when making a lane change or right hand turn.As for driving centre drive in town that’s another matter. 
Wiretwister:
Agree with the duty of care point but what about self preservation? In your own admission you are a safer cyclist because you understand the challenges faced by drivers of larger vehicles but safer for who primarily? I would contend that is the self preservation point if other road users abdicate their responsibility and come unstuck they can’t push that responsibility onto others who may well have done all that is practically possible to avoid the conflict.
Oh, safer for myself, unquestionably. But my point is perhaps best illustrated with a tale I read on the cycling forum I used to frequent.
One of the regulars on there, who was a very traffic savvy cyclist, posted a conversation she’d had with her mum, who had said that she always tried to position herself on the nearside of an HGV at roundabouts since she’d then be able to pull away at the same time and be shielded from traffic on the roundabout.
Now, I know and you know and virtually every regular driver on here knows that this is an exceptionally dangerous place to be, but the point is that there are regular cyclists out there who don’t know this, and in fact even feel safer there. I don’t think that a cycling test is the answer myself, since the great thing about cycling is that anyone can do it and society needs a democratic form of transport which anyone can use, so the only thing left is for the driver to be aware of how cyclists can and do creep around vehicles and position themselves in frankly silly places. I’d be happy to see a bit more road sense taught in schools from an early age, but that won’t absolve the drivers of their responsibilities to look out for more vulnerable road users, and nor should it.
Carryfast:
Rhythm Thief:
The simple answer is that my attention is very rarely away from the nearside mirrors, certainly not for long enough to miss a cyclist. It takes a while for someone on a bike to make their way down the side of a trailer and the only real blind spot is right next to the cab: if my attention is off my nearside mirror for the length of time it takes a cyclist to actually get to my blind spot, then I’m not doing my job properly. In short, I know there’s a blind spot there and my driving allows for it.
The really dangerous thing is that there are drivers and cyclists out there who believe that and those complacent drivers will just result in yet more cyclists believing it and getting themselves in the danger zone because of it.
As for me I could reverse your idea by saying that if you’re diverting that much attention to the nearside mirrors then your not applying enough to the offside ones and what’s going on ahead.Bearing in mind that I wouldn’t trust even my usual left hand turn method which was just drive it through the turn on the nearside mirrors and let what’s going on ahead look after itself after I’d satisfied myself that nothing was going to get in the way.Which is why I also used that life saver pause just in case there ‘might’ have been something out of view that ‘hopefully’ would then come into view before committing the wagon to the turn.The same applies in the case of left hand drive wagons when making a lane change or right hand turn.As for driving centre drive in town that’s another matter.
CF, old fruit, my central point is that you look everywhere, all the time, when you’re stationary in a truck. You don’t check your A-Z or ■■■■ about with the radio, you don’t clock the woman in the convertible next to you, you don’t pick your nose and stare idly at the sky. And you certainly don’t "just drive it through the turn on the nearside mirrors and let what’s going on ahead look after itself … " You scan the mirrors and the area ahead of your truck all the time, then when the lights change you do a final check (moving in the seat if necessary to minimise any blind spots), then you go. As I said, it takes a while for a cyclist to make their way up the length of your trailer and actually into your blind spot, and your attention certainly shouldn’t be off the mirror for that length of time. You won’t entirely eliminate the chance of hitting a cyclist in this way - those without lights will always be hard to see and are doing themselves no favours whatever - but I bet a good many of the left turning lorry vs cyclist incidents could have been avoided by proper observation on the part of the driver.
beetee07:
Olog Hai:
SteveBarnsleytrucker:
You are wrong there because if a car has to go onto my side of the road to get around a parked car then it is me who has the right of way not them, same as a roundabout, traffic coming from the right has right of way over traffic entering the roundabout.
Albion1971 is never wrong. He or she knows everything and can do everything better than anybody else.
+1 that’s why the ignore function is your friend.
I have it on ignore but you always seem to see what it had typed by some ones quote.
Only person I know who comperes bad spelling and grammar to bad driving. It needs to get out more.
Cyclists are Wiggins wannabes dressing in there tight stuff giving it large and just pulling out without looking over there shoulder. Like my driving instructor said to me " Mick, see that idiot on that bike he is what is known as a pigeon. He will get you a fail if he ends up under your wheel. 40% of them die on the roads due to there stupidity so be careful when near them." stuck with me.
Today whilst sitting in Oxford traffic I was right up against the curb. I see the little muppets cycling about and I was on a narrow road. The idiots still squeezed down the inside. There losing my respect fast.
Rhythm Thief:
Carryfast:
Rhythm Thief:
The simple answer is that my attention is very rarely away from the nearside mirrors, certainly not for long enough to miss a cyclist. It takes a while for someone on a bike to make their way down the side of a trailer and the only real blind spot is right next to the cab: if my attention is off my nearside mirror for the length of time it takes a cyclist to actually get to my blind spot, then I’m not doing my job properly. In short, I know there’s a blind spot there and my driving allows for it.
The really dangerous thing is that there are drivers and cyclists out there who believe that and those complacent drivers will just result in yet more cyclists believing it and getting themselves in the danger zone because of it.
As for me I could reverse your idea by saying that if you’re diverting that much attention to the nearside mirrors then your not applying enough to the offside ones and what’s going on ahead.Bearing in mind that I wouldn’t trust even my usual left hand turn method which was just drive it through the turn on the nearside mirrors and let what’s going on ahead look after itself after I’d satisfied myself that nothing was going to get in the way.Which is why I also used that life saver pause just in case there ‘might’ have been something out of view that ‘hopefully’ would then come into view before committing the wagon to the turn.The same applies in the case of left hand drive wagons when making a lane change or right hand turn.As for driving centre drive in town that’s another matter.
CF, old fruit, my central point is that you look everywhere, all the time, when you’re stationary in a truck. You don’t check your A-Z or ■■■■ about with the radio, you don’t clock the woman in the convertible next to you, you don’t pick your nose and stare idly at the sky. And you certainly don’t "just drive it through the turn on the nearside mirrors and let what’s going on ahead look after itself … " You scan the mirrors and the area ahead of your truck all the time, then when the lights change you do a final check (moving in the seat if necessary to minimise any blind spots), then you go. As I said, it takes a while for a cyclist to make their way up the length of your trailer and actually into your blind spot, and your attention certainly shouldn’t be off the mirror for that length of time. You won’t entirely eliminate the chance of hitting a cyclist in this way - those without lights will always be hard to see and are doing themselves no favours whatever - but I bet a good many of the left turning lorry vs cyclist incidents could have been avoided by proper observation on the part of the driver.
Driver this driver that. What part will the cyclist play in preventing the accident? Nothing?
You’re not reading my posts, are you? Or if you are, you’re - deliberately or otherwise - missing the point I’m making. Have another read.
Rhythm Thief:
Carryfast:
Rhythm Thief:
The simple answer is that my attention is very rarely away from the nearside mirrors, certainly not for long enough to miss a cyclist. It takes a while for someone on a bike to make their way down the side of a trailer and the only real blind spot is right next to the cab: if my attention is off my nearside mirror for the length of time it takes a cyclist to actually get to my blind spot, then I’m not doing my job properly. In short, I know there’s a blind spot there and my driving allows for it.
The really dangerous thing is that there are drivers and cyclists out there who believe that and those complacent drivers will just result in yet more cyclists believing it and getting themselves in the danger zone because of it.
As for me I could reverse your idea by saying that if you’re diverting that much attention to the nearside mirrors then your not applying enough to the offside ones and what’s going on ahead.Bearing in mind that I wouldn’t trust even my usual left hand turn method which was just drive it through the turn on the nearside mirrors and let what’s going on ahead look after itself after I’d satisfied myself that nothing was going to get in the way.Which is why I also used that life saver pause just in case there ‘might’ have been something out of view that ‘hopefully’ would then come into view before committing the wagon to the turn.The same applies in the case of left hand drive wagons when making a lane change or right hand turn.As for driving centre drive in town that’s another matter.
CF, old fruit, my central point is that you look everywhere, all the time, when you’re stationary in a truck. You don’t check your A-Z or ■■■■ about with the radio, you don’t clock the woman in the convertible next to you, you don’t pick your nose and stare idly at the sky. And you certainly don’t "just drive it through the turn on the nearside mirrors and let what’s going on ahead look after itself … " You scan the mirrors and the area ahead of your truck all the time, then when the lights change you do a final check (moving in the seat if necessary to minimise any blind spots), then you go. As I said, it takes a while for a cyclist to make their way up the length of your trailer and actually into your blind spot, and your attention certainly shouldn’t be off the mirror for that length of time. You won’t entirely eliminate the chance of hitting a cyclist in this way - those without lights will always be hard to see and are doing themselves no favours whatever - but I bet a good many of the left turning lorry vs cyclist incidents could have been avoided by proper observation on the part of the driver.
The idea of supposedly ‘scanning’ is just likely to lead to the situation checking everything but actually seeing nothing.Although having said that I was referring more to the situation of a left hand turn on green or without lights control at all.In which case trust me it’s easy for a cyclist to undertake you during that type of turn while you’re checking ahead and the offside mirrors for anything approaching that’s likely to get tangled up with the tail sweep and ahead and left into the road you’re turning into to make sure that there’s nothing likely to cross in front of you before and through the turn.That’s assuming you’ve actually spent sufficient attention on those other important factors before then doing as I said getting back to the nearside mirrors all through the turn.As I said don’t underestimate the importance of waiting to allow for anything that might be out of sight on the nearside in the hope that it will then come into view before committing to the turn.As for the bs idea of ‘scanning’ all the mirrors and ahead and thinking that will guarantee that you’ll always see the suicidal undertaking cyclist in addition to the compromised attention span that provides for all round observation that’s your choice.
I read your post that I replied to and it’s driver this and driver that
mickyblue:
I read your post that I replied to and it’s driver this and driver that
Fair enough, but my wider point is that the driver is the one bringing the danger into the road environment. Therefore, he or she should bear a greater part of the responsibility for ensuring it doesn’t all go wrong. I also said that the same thing applies to cyclists mixing with pedestrians on shared use paths, but you seem less eager to pick that point up.
Not less eager just can’t be arsed to go through 4 pages of dribble